See Part I.
These are the last three images I managed to save from Facebook before they banned me. The name of this stunning beauty is Julia Sarf. She’s not very active on FB, she did not upload many photos, but she managed to acquire more than 2200 friends in a couple of weeks. 200 during the last day.
And isn’t it understandable? Even if you do not like the shiny latex-like leggings she’s wearing?
You might like to know that “Julia Sarf” is in fact a 14 year old Norwegian girl named Emilie. Here is her blog. http://voe.blogg.no/ Shame on you!
First of all thanks for the link.
Then, let’s analyse the situation.
On Facebook, we have a 19yo German girl called Julia Sarf.
On VOE, we have a 14yo girl called Emilie.
But the photos show the same person. Hm… how can that be…
Since I never trusted Facebook, I would assume, that the user with name Julia Sarf misrepresented his/herself and his/her account with 2500 (already) friends must be deleted.
Let’s check the corresponding Facebook page…. Hmmm… strange…. It says “does not exist”. And that means that the account has been deleted.
What does this tell us?
o- Facebook is not reliable.
o- Your Facebook account can be blocked at any time, even if the name looks good and there are no pr0n photos published.
Step two:
o- You can’t trust an Internet page
o- Why do you think her name is Emilie and she’s 14 yo? She looks definitely older than my daughter.
Another interesting thing. “Emilie”‘s English website has been suspended.
And another one. According to her Norwegian blog, the fake Facebook account was reported to the police.
I don’t know where you’re going with this, but my point is that you’ve posted pictures of a 14 (now 15) year old girl in a sexual context. Here is the specific blog post with this outfit http://voe.blogg.no/1254474516_jeg_skal_til_sandvika.html
“someone ” wrote:
1- Thanks again for the link
2- Have a look at this page: Maddison Gabriel, child pornography, sexually explicit conduct, US code collection, definition, terms and federal cases
3- Where did/do you see “sexual context”?